Clause by clause.
CAUTtools is built to one document: Guidelines for Effective Institutional Piano Maintenance, published by the College and University Technicians Committee of the Piano Technicians Guild. This page shows what each recommendation asks for and what the platform does about it — including where the platform does nothing, because the recommendation is about people rather than software.
| Clause | What it asks for | In CAUTtools |
|---|---|---|
| Lead Technician | A lead technician with authority over other technicians, contracted work, purchase decisions, and the long-term plan. | Role separation, assignment queues, and a lead view over all open work. The authority is the institution's to grant; the platform makes the oversight practical. |
| Long-Term Planning | A twenty-year plan covering replacement, rebuilding, and maintenance standard. | Valuation, replacement sequencing, and deterioration projection over a twenty-year horizon. Sequencing & projection: Category C |
| Budget Considerations | Pianos budgeted as capital, with maintenance at five to ten percent of replacement cost. | Fleet valuation maintained continuously, so the percentage is a live figure rather than an annual scramble. |
| Staffing and Workload | Staffing derived from the workload formula; one FTE per 40–60 pianos in performance institutions, 60–100 otherwise. | The seven factors stored per instrument, averaged across the register, run through the formula. Output is a staffing figure with its inputs visible. |
| Concert Tuning | Concert instruments tuned the day of each performance, with time for voicing and regulation. | Performance instruments flagged by class and usage; the event calendar shows which days require day-of service. |
| General Tuning | Every piano tuned at least four times a year, more under humidity instability or heavy use. | Service intervals tracked per instrument against actual completed work. The Unserviced Pianos report is the exception list. |
| Miscellaneous Repairs | Daily capacity for routine and emergency repair. | Ticketing with claim, assignment, comments, status, and completion timestamps. |
| Reconditioning | Annual minor reconditioning for high-use instruments; periodic major reconditioning. | Condition and rebuilding-parameters ratings on the record, with history showing when reconditioning was last performed. |
| Rebuilding | A standing program of partial and complete rebuilding to extend useful life. | Rebuild rating per instrument feeds both the workload formula and the rebuild-versus-replace comparison. Rebuild-vs-replace scoring: Category C |
| Paperwork | Inventory management, reports, scheduling, and faculty communication as recognised duties. | The whole platform. This clause is the reason it exists. |
| Communications | A report system so anyone with access to a piano can flag a deficiency. | QR tag on every instrument, opening a public request form that identifies the piano automatically. No account required. |
| Climate Control | Humidity variance measured and controlled; per-piano systems where building control is absent. | Climate code per instrument, deterioration and cost modelling by band, and humidifier refill tracking. Deterioration & cost models: Category C |
| Inventory Control | Determining the optimal size of a maintainable inventory; retiring what cannot be maintained. | Register with retirement status, plus the workload figure that shows when the fleet has outgrown the staff. |
| Compensation | Pay and benefits appropriate to the qualifications required. | Nothing. This is a bargaining matter between a technician and an institution. |
| Professional Development | Support for RPT standing, convention attendance, and manufacturer training. | Nothing. Named here because the platform should not be mistaken for a substitute. |
Four categories of relationship to CAUT guidance
Not everything CAUTtools does is a direct implementation of CAUT recommendations. Understanding the distinction is important for both users and reviewers.
Direct implementation
A direct implementation translates an explicit published recommendation, factor, formula, or standard into a software field, calculation, report, or workflow.
Examples: instrument inventory with make/model/serial/location; seven CAUT workload factors stored per instrument; workload formula (Base × C × RP × CC × A × U × U/G × SM = RW); staffing calculation (Instruments ÷ RW = technicians required); service documentation and tuning history; four-times-per-year baseline for general tuning; 5–10% of replacement value budget recommendation; 20-year planning horizon.
These features are intended to operationalize identifiable published guidance. This does not mean PTG has approved the software implementation. It means the feature is designed to help users follow the Guidelines.
CAUT-informed implementation
Supports the objective or spirit of a published recommendation, but the specific technology or workflow is not prescribed in the Guidelines.
Examples: QR codes for service request intake (the Guidelines ask for a report system; QR is our technology choice); mobile data entry; dashboards and visualizations; automated exception reporting; calendar synchronization; bulk inventory tools.
These are design decisions, not CAUT requirements. We believe they advance the Guidelines' purpose. A different technician or software vendor might implement them differently.
Original CAUTtools methodology
Calculations, assumptions, projections, and design choices created by CAUTtools and not drawn from CAUT publications.
Examples: instrument-level aggregation procedure (the Guidelines give per-factor definitions and multipliers; how those factors are averaged across an inventory is a design choice — we average equally per instrument, then multiply; a different approach, like weighting by usage, would produce a different result); deterioration scenarios (the Guidelines describe climate impact qualitatively; our quantitative deterioration curves over 20 years are original modeling); lifespan projection by climate band; cost modeling (maintenance cost as a function of climate quality, accumulated over 20 years); replacement-priority scoring; humidifier refill schedule logic; risk scoring or alert thresholds.
These methods are never presented as official CAUT methodology unless the source publication explicitly establishes them. When we use original methodology, we label it as such and make the assumptions visible.
Professional judgment
Some determinations must remain the responsibility of a qualified technician or institutional decision-maker. CAUTtools records, organizes, and explains these judgments. It does not replace them.
Examples: condition classification (only a qualified technician can assess whether a piano is in excellent, good, fair, or poor condition — the software asks you to classify it, it doesn't classify for you); rebuilding candidacy; usage intensity classification; maintenance priority (the Unserviced Pianos report surfaces which instruments are overdue, but a concert piano may need immediate attention even if another piano has gone longer without service — priority is your call); climate interpretation; service urgency; replace-versus-rebuild decision.
Design principle: CAUTtools surfaces the data and context needed for these judgments. It doesn't attempt to automate them.
Accuracy & limitations
What CAUTtools shows well
- Current inventory state — what pianos you have, where, condition today.
- Service activity — what work was completed, when, by whom.
- Workload calculation — given current factor assignments, what staffing should be.
- Cost projection basis — how maintenance cost changes with climate or configuration.
- Replacement sequencing logic — a defensible order for replacement decisions.
- Pattern identification — which instruments are troublesome, which have gone unserviced too long.
What CAUTtools does not guarantee
- Actual condition — the software displays what you tell it; if condition data is inaccurate, projections are inaccurate.
- Future condition — deterioration curves are models, not predictions.
- Lifespan predictions — a piano modeled to last 15 more years might last 10 or 25.
- Cost estimates — maintenance and rebuild costs vary by market and builder.
- Staffing outcomes — the formula suggests how many technicians you need if your assumptions are correct; even perfect data doesn't guarantee the right hire.
- Institutional decisions — CAUTtools provides evidence, it doesn't make budget committees approve proposals or deans hire staff.
The formula is only as good as the inventory. If instrument records are incomplete, out of date, or inaccurate, the reports will be misleading.
CAUTtools includes data-quality tools (duplicate detection, missing-field alerts, consistency checks). Use them. Treat inventory maintenance as an ongoing responsibility, not a one-time entry.
Our commitment
What we claim
- CAUTtools implements published CAUT guidance accurately.
- Factor tables and multipliers are correct.
- Formulas are transparent and auditable.
- Original methodology is labeled as such.
- Professional judgment is preserved and emphasized.
- Data is secure and yours to own.
What we don't claim
- PTG endorsement, certification, or sponsorship.
- That CAUTtools is "official" CAUT software.
- That our original methods are CAUT-approved — they're not, they're ours.
- That the software replaces professional judgment — it doesn't.
- That projections are guarantees — they're not.
- That one size fits all institutions — it doesn't; you configure factors per instrument.
We've invited the CAUT Committee to review CAUTtools against the Guidelines. The purpose is professional scrutiny—accuracy, attribution, methodology, and boundaries between CAUT guidance and original CAUTtools design.
The workload formula
Reproduced for reference. CAUTtools stores each rating on the instrument record and computes the inventory average, so the recommended workload updates whenever the fleet, its condition, or its environment changes.
Base × C × RP × CC × A × U × U/G × SM = RW
Instruments ÷ RW = technicians required
Each calculated factor falls between 0.1 and 2.5 and sits near 1.0 in an average situation. The Guidelines advise that a factor at or above 1.2, or at or below 0.8, marks a circumstance deserving scrutiny — and that a partial inventory yields unreliable results, so the formula should be run against the whole register.
| 40 | Conservatories and top performance situations with national recognition. |
| 60 | Performance and education emphasis; part of a nationally ranked institution. |
| 80 | Education emphasis with strong performance areas. |
| 100 | General education music departments where music is not emphasised. |
| 1.30 | Excellent. Regular maintenance: regulation, tuning, voicing. |
| 1.00 | Good. Minor reconditioning: hammer filing, key re-bushing, minor pinning. |
| 0.80 | Good/fair. Major reconditioning: hammer replacement, major action repinning. |
| 0.60 | Fair. Partial rebuilding: new action parts, restringing on existing pinblock. |
| 0.40 | Fair/poor. Major rebuilding: new pinblock, soundboard repair, new strings and pins. |
| 0.20 | Poor. Complete rebuild: new soundboard, bridges, pinblock, strings, action parts. |
| 0.40 | Will receive complete rebuilding, including soundboard and bridges. |
| 0.60 | Will receive major rebuilding: soundboard repair, new pinblock. |
| 0.80 | Will receive minor rebuilding: restringing, complete action parts replacement. |
| 1.00 | Will receive major reconditioning: new hammers, major repinning. |
| 1.20 | Will receive minor reconditioning: hammer filing, key re-bushing, regulation. |
| 1.40 | Excellent. 5 points; full humidity system, well maintained, covers fitted. |
| 1.20 | Very good. 10 points, or a complete well-maintained system with covers. |
| 1.00 | Good. 20 points, or a complete well-maintained system. |
| 0.80 | Fair. 40 points. |
| 0.60 | Poor. 60 points. |
| 0.40 | Very poor. In excess of 60 points. |
| 0.90 | 1 to 2 years old; applies particularly to loan programs. |
| 1.30 | 2 to 15 years old. |
| 1.00 | 16 to 30 years old. |
| 0.70 | 31 to 45 years old. |
| 0.50 | Over 45 years old. |
| 2.00 | Light use, 0 to 4 hours. |
| 1.70 | Light use, 4 to 8 hours. |
| 1.30 | Light use, 8+ hours; or medium use, 0 to 4 hours. |
| 1.00 | Medium use, 4 to 8 hours. |
| 0.80 | Heavy use, 0 to 4 hours. |
| 0.70 | Medium use, 8 or more hours. |
| 0.60 | Heavy use, 4 to 8 hours. |
| 0.40 | Heavy use, 8 to 12 hours. |
| 0.30 | Heavy use, more than 12 hours. |
| 1.10 | Upright. |
| 0.70 | Grand. |
| 0.10 | Top performance. Daily attention, accelerated rebuilding. Recital hall instruments. |
| 0.40 | Near top performance. Weekly to twice-weekly attention. |
| 0.70 | Excellent. Kept near performance level; weekly to bi-weekly attention. |
| 1.00 | Very good. Tuned, voiced, regulated bi-weekly to monthly. |
| 1.30 | Good. Monthly to bi-monthly attention. |
| 1.80 | Fair. Tuning allowed to deteriorate; once or twice a semester. |
| 2.50 | Minimum. Tuned twice a year; all keys working. |
Multipliers and descriptions transcribed from the Appendix, pages 16–19. Descriptions are condensed; the published document is authoritative.
“Investment in humidity control is probably the single most cost-effective investment in terms of achieving and maintaining high standards.”
Guidelines · Appendix, p. 16
Reading the numbers
The Guidelines are explicit that the formula's value is not only the staffing figure. The individual factors diagnose the program:
- Climate below 0.80 indicates conditions causing tuning instability and structural deterioration. Humidity control, in the building or in the pianos, is the recommended response.
- Condition or age running low points to contracted rebuilding in the short term, or investment in new instruments — not to more tuning hours.
- Condition or age running high means a young inventory that will deteriorate on schedule unless replacement is planned alongside staffing.
- Usage and standard of maintenance running low is normal for a conservatory. Running high in a performance school may mean the standard has quietly slipped, or that there are more instruments than the program needs.
CAUTtools surfaces these readings next to the figure, so the number arrives with its interpretation attached.
Run it against a real register.
The formula is only as good as the inventory behind it. That is the part CAUTtools actually solves.